PDA

View Full Version : Did Eve add to the word of God?



divaD
Feb 20th 2008, 06:42 PM
Genesis 3:2 *And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 *But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


I have been discussing Genesis 3 elsewhere, and I have discovered, that there are many that interpret this as Eve adding to the word of God. The part where they claim she added to the word of God is this: "neither shall ye touch it".

Personally I don't believe she added to the word of God. Does anyone think she did. If so, why?

ProjectPeter
Feb 20th 2008, 07:03 PM
We don't know if she did or not really. Let's put it this way... that ain't what got her in trouble with God. I've heard a lot of folks preach on that and I think they are making it into something that it wasn't intended to be made into.

My heart's Desire
Feb 20th 2008, 08:26 PM
Genesis 3:2 *And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 *But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


I have been discussing Genesis 3 elsewhere, and I have discovered, that there are many that interpret this as Eve adding to the word of God. The part where they claim she added to the word of God is this: "neither shall ye touch it".

Personally I don't believe she added to the word of God. Does anyone think she did. If so, why?
All I know is the Word tells us what God said and then tells us what Eve said and Eve seems to add words that we read that God did not say. So either she added to God's words or in the intrepretion of what God said someone left out the words "Neither shall ye touch it". I don't know how else to go beyond that than if somewhere along the way of Bible translation it was translated wrongly.
Either way the point is that Eve disobeyed God.

divaD
Feb 20th 2008, 09:36 PM
All I know is the Word tells us what God said and then tells us what Eve said and Eve seems to add words that we read that God did not say. So either she added to God's words or in the intrepretion of what God said someone left out the words "Neither shall ye touch it". I don't know how else to go beyond that than if somewhere along the way of Bible translation it was translated wrongly.
Either way the point is that Eve disobeyed God.




But here is the dilemma I see. If Eve added to the Word of God, wouldn't this make her a liar, and the first liar at that? If we look back in Genesis 2, we see the only recorded command concerning this tree before the fall of man.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Several things to take note of here are...this command came directly from God and spoken directly to Adam, and Eve wasn't even formed yet. With that in mind, one should read 1Timothy 2:


1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

With that in mind, and Adam(a type for Christ) being the first man, Adam was the mediator between God and Eve, just as Christ is the mediator between God and men.


Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.


Without going completely off topic, one needs to read all of Ephesians 5 to understand how God designed man, and what the roles of man and wife are in relation to one another.
But to sum it all up, the reason I brought 1 Timothy 2 and Ephesians 5 into it is this, I feel God instructed Adam concerning this tree, then Adam in turn instructed Eve concerning this tree and what God stated about it. And since there is no recorded instructions of what Adam may or may not have said to Eve, then we can't assume that Eve added to the Word of God. And also, we should assume that God went into greater details concerning this tree than what was recorded. I admit I may be way off with all of this, but to me it seems more reasonable than Eve deliberately adding to what God said.

Athanasius
Feb 20th 2008, 09:44 PM
But here is the dilemma I see. If Eve added to the Word of God, wouldn't this make her a liar, and the first liar at that? If we look back in Genesis 2, we see the only recorded command concerning this tree before the fall of man.

Without going completely off topic, one needs to read all of Ephesians 5 to understand how God designed man, and what the roles of man and wife are in relation to one another.
But to sum it all up, the reason I brought 1 Timothy 2 and Ephesians 5 into it is this, I feel God instructed Adam concerning this tree, then Adam in turn instructed Eve concerning this tree and what God stated about it. And since there is no recorded instructions of what Adam may or may not have said to Eve, then we can't assume that Eve added to the Word of God. And also, we should assume that God went into greater details concerning this tree than what was recorded. I admit I may be way off with all of this, but to me it seems more reasonable than Eve deliberately adding to what God said.

I don't see what the big deal is? I also don't see how you go from 'Even added to the word of God, making her the first liar" to "Adam instructed Eve, but since nothing is recorded we must assume that 1) God went into great detail 2) Adam taught Eve word for word and that 3) Eve just straight out lied.

It's one big argument out of silence. And then after that, we can oppress women some more.

Jesusinmyheart
Feb 20th 2008, 09:46 PM
If anything the thing that Eve did speaks volumes to what man tends to do and add words, making simple restrictions even more complex than what God gave. Take a look at what Yeshua derided some Pharisees on doing adding to the Law creating a burden they themselves were not willing to bear.

This has been a problem of mankind since the fall.
I wouldn't call Eve a liar for adding to the word, she was actually trying to be extra cautious here. She did screw up when it came to considering the serpent over what God had said.

Shalom,
Tanja

karenoka27
Feb 20th 2008, 10:12 PM
We don't know if she did or not really. Let's put it this way... that ain't what got her in trouble with God. I've heard a lot of folks preach on that and I think they are making it into something that it wasn't intended to be made into.

I too have heard a lot of teachings on it..the way I see it, if you are told not to have something let's say a cookie, and you think to yourself.."well I am not allowed to eat the cookie, but no one said I couldn't hold it in my hand..." then just by holding it, the temptation grows stronger...it's almost foolish to think that just holding it will satisfy you.
Same goes with an alcoholic just "holding" on to a bottle of whiskey...no affects to him by holding it...but can one just hold it without giving in to the temptation? So Eve thought "if I just touch it...and there she goes!"

judi<>><
Feb 20th 2008, 10:23 PM
Let's all remember--we are told what Eve said in response to the serpent's question. We are also told that God instructed Adam about the Tree before the creation of Eve. We are not told who instructed Eve, but at some point, a further stricture was added.

The question is, what effect did it have? It did keep Eve from touching the tree, but then when she hazarded the touch, and didn't die, she might very well have thought, "Hmm, maybe this serpent has something, here."

I'm with Project Peter--it wasn't what she said God said, or believed God said, or had been told God said that got her in trouble. It was not obeying what was said. If she had obeyed both parts (even though one was added) she would have been alright--instead, she honored neither of them

Naphal
Feb 20th 2008, 11:01 PM
Genesis 3:2 *And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 *But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


I have been discussing Genesis 3 elsewhere, and I have discovered, that there are many that interpret this as Eve adding to the word of God. The part where they claim she added to the word of God is this: "neither shall ye touch it".

Personally I don't believe she added to the word of God. Does anyone think she did. If so, why?

I don't think so. We don't have every moment of their lives recorded. It would be natural that God would give Eve specific instructions that could differ a little from Adam's. And we aren't told Eve's sin was adding to what God said. I believe she was not allowed to touch nor eat of that fruit.

Partaker of Christ
Feb 20th 2008, 11:11 PM
Let's all remember--we are told what Eve said in response to the serpent's question. We are also told that God instructed Adam about the Tree before the creation of Eve. We are not told who instructed Eve, but at some point, a further stricture was added.

The question is, what effect did it have? It did keep Eve from touching the tree, but then when she hazarded the touch, and didn't die, she might very well have thought, "Hmm, maybe this serpent has something, here."

I'm with Project Peter--it wasn't what she said God said, or believed God said, or had been told God said that got her in trouble. It was not obeying what was said. If she had obeyed both parts (even though one was added) she would have been alright--instead, she honored neither of them

It is said that Eve was decieved, but Adam sinned.
God gave the command to man, and said to Adam (after he ate) I commanded you.

Gen 3:11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Notice also, Eve ate first, but it was not until Adam ate, that the eyes of both were opened.

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Naphal
Feb 20th 2008, 11:26 PM
It is said that Eve was decieved, but Adam sinned.

They both sinned.


1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

One sinned after being deceived which was still a crime and still was punished and one sinned without being deceived and he was punished as well. Eve was punished harsher than Adam was.


Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Eve's punishments


1: greatly multiplied sorrow and conception (a dual curse, a difficult pregnancy)
2: bring forth children in sorrow (pain in child birth)
3: desire to a man that will rule over her, not an equal (a dual curse)

Now, some may say some of these things aren't sorrows or burdens but Eve and all women would have had a much easier and much different of a life if these things wouldn't have been issued against her for her sins.



Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Adam's punishments:

1: ground is cursed, in sorrow you eat from this ground for life (difficult farming, dual curse)

This is really it. His life producing food to eat would be harder. Both would also have to face death and return to the ground which they came from.

Based on this I believe Eve was punshed more than Adam was but both faced harsh punishments that would affect each other as much as it affected them. A woman with a tough pregnancy and a touch childbirth means the man would have more to do and deal with and a woman would have her own work to do related to the mans work of trying to get food to grow in inhospitable lands.

9Marksfan
Feb 21st 2008, 01:00 AM
It's important that we see the downward steps to Eve's sin, as they are so often the way Satan tempts us to sin too:-

1.. Satan gets Eve to DOUBT God's word - "did God really say?"
2. Eve DISTORTS God's word - the obvious reading is that she adds a restriction to it because she resented this one restriction - we too often add to God's restrictions in a spirit of resentment when His commands are intended to bring us true freedom!
3. Satan DENIES God's word - "You shall not surely die!"
4. Eve DEFIES God's word and DISOBEYS it.

I believe that any other interpretation of the addition (did God add it? Did Adam add it?) is pure speculation - it seems clear that Eve added it - in a spirit of resentment or, as has been suggested, legalism.

Naphal
Feb 21st 2008, 02:14 AM
2. Eve DISTORTS God's word - the obvious reading is that she adds a restriction to it because she resented this one restriction - we too often add to God's restrictions in a spirit of resentment when His commands are intended to bring us true freedom!

There is no evidence at all to support that eve has claimed God said something that he did not say to her. We don't know what was said so we cannot say she is lying or else we judge her with no evidence at all.

Besides, it makes no sense to add more rules to something because you dislike the one lone rule. It would make more sense to alter or change the one rule not add more.

tgallison
Feb 21st 2008, 02:29 AM
Genesis 3:2 *And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 *But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


I have been discussing Genesis 3 elsewhere, and I have discovered, that there are many that interpret this as Eve adding to the word of God. The part where they claim she added to the word of God is this: "neither shall ye touch it".

Personally I don't believe she added to the word of God. Does anyone think she did. If so, why?

divaD greetings

It is presumptuous of us to think every thing is written.

Can you imagine a 10 billion page Bible. Think of all the fun the scribes would have had transcribing this, without a printing press.

John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Why should God duplicate to us, what he had Eve tell us? Isn't it enough that he told us what He said, through Eve?

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Mograce2U
Feb 21st 2008, 04:37 AM
(Gen 3:1 KJV) Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Satan begins his discourse with Eve by asking her a leading question, which implicates that God did not really mean what He said literally. And his question has a subtle hint that God must be really strict to forbid her anything.

Eve chomps at this and responds with not only what God did say, but also in her defense of God, gives her understanding for WHY He said it. This is what opens the door for Satan to tell her his opinion of what God "really meant". That was the trap she fell into.

By her letting Satan know that she thought the fruit must be poisonous, she gives him some fuel to disagree (because she was wrong). So we see that her error, opened the door for her to hear more of the same - from someone who presented himself as a person in the know. And the whole conversation turns from what God actually said to what they have spawned in their own imagination.

Eve started with trying to speak for God and Satan went way beyond anything she would have thought on her own. New revelation, so to speak, where a perceived benefit is presented that seems to counter balance the seriousness of the warning from God not to do it.

And it happens all the time today just like it did back then when men listen to doctrines of demons.

9Marksfan
Feb 21st 2008, 05:31 PM
There is no evidence at all to support that eve has claimed God said something that he did not say to her.

Just like there's no evidence that, following Christ's resurrection we can repent after we die! ;)

Actually there is evidence of what God said and what Eve said God said - she added a requirement which wasn't there in the first place, making God's restriction greater than it was.


We don't know what was said so we cannot say she is lying or else we judge her with no evidence at all.

Well if you believe that Scripture is sufficient, then we have been told what God said! Period!


Besides, it makes no sense to add more rules to something because you dislike the one lone rule. It would make more sense to alter or change the one rule not add more.

Well you don't know much about human nature!

Naphal
Feb 21st 2008, 11:41 PM
Actually there is evidence of what God said and what Eve said God said - she added a requirement which wasn't there in the first place, making God's restriction greater than it was.

We only have what God told Adam before Eve existed. All we know about what Eve was told was her own testimony. Now, to call someone a liar you have to have two witnesses that can testify as proof. You seem to be pretty convinced she lied but I don't see any proof nor any witnesses to back up your accusation.

Lastly, why do you wish to play the role of accuser? Don't we have enough people that do that already?

divaD
Feb 22nd 2008, 12:18 AM
We only have what God told Adam before Eve existed. All we know about what Eve was told was her own testimony. Now, to call someone a liar you have to have two witnesses that can testify as proof. You seem to be pretty convinced she lied but I don't see any proof nor any witnesses to back up your accusation.

Lastly, why do you wish to play the role of accuser? Don't we have enough people that do that already?



I don't think she lied either. My Bible says that the devil was the first liar and the father of it. No matter how one wants to reason it, adding to what God said, would be lying. How can it not be? But Eve didn't add to the Word of God. I just don't see how she could have.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it


As far as I can tell, the first recorded lie was in Genesis 3:4

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


So if Eve lied in verse 3, then this makes her a liar even before the serpent. Gen 3:13 tells us exactly what the serpent did. He deceived her.

Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat


2 Corinthians 11:3 backs up that fact.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 09:45 AM
We only have what God told Adam before Eve existed. All we know about what Eve was told was her own testimony. Now, to call someone a liar you have to have two witnesses that can testify as proof. You seem to be pretty convinced she lied but I don't see any proof nor any witnesses to back up your accusation.

I am not saying Eve was a liar - but she distorted what God said! That's ABUNDANTLY clear! Now whether Adam added to what God said or whether in the moment she was thinking how to repsond to the doubt Satan was sowing in her mind, we don't know - but that she distorted God's word by adding to it is unmistakeable.


Lastly, why do you wish to play the role of accuser? Don't we have enough people that do that already?

I will challenge people when they are in error, especially in their overall approach to Scripture. I'm sorry if you think that is accusing - but so many people take an unhelpful approach to the Scriptures, twisting them, taking them out of context and imposing their own views on them that some of us have to point out their error - or everyone will think their approach is OK!

Or am I picking you up incorrectly?

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 09:49 AM
I don't think she lied either. My Bible says that the devil was the first liar and the father of it. No matter how one wants to reason it, adding to what God said, would be lying. How can it not be?

It was distorting - possibly as a result of Satan casting doubt in her mind.


But Eve didn't add to the Word of God. I just don't see how she could have.

Well it's there in black and white for all to see!


John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it

As far as I can tell, the first recorded lie was in Genesis 3:4

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

So if Eve lied in verse 3, then this makes her a liar even before the serpent. Gen 3:13 tells us exactly what the serpent did. He deceived her.

But didn't that deception start with the doubt Satan sowed in her mind? And didn't the distortion follow as a result?


Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat

2 Corinthians 11:3 backs up that fact.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Amen - but then beguuiling started with "Did God actually say?" - it's so often the same wth us!

Naphal
Feb 22nd 2008, 09:50 AM
I am not saying Eve was a liar - but she distorted what God said! That's ABUNDANTLY clear!


Really? Do ribs have ears?


Now whether Adam added to what God said or whether in the moment she was thinking how to repsond to the doubt Satan was sowing in her mind, we don't know - but that she distorted God's word by adding to it is unmistakeable.

lol, you just speculated that maybe Adam added to the Word, then you switched it back to Eve. You have no evidence in the least about any distortion to God's word by either of them.




I will challenge people when they are in error, especially in their overall approach to Scripture. I'm sorry if you think that is accusing - but so many people take an unhelpful approach to the Scriptures, twisting them, taking them out of context and imposing their own views on them that some of us have to point out their error - or everyone will think their approach is OK!

I think you need to get a really big mirror.

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 10:06 AM
Really? Do ribs have ears?

OK - fair point.


lol, you just speculated that maybe Adam added to the Word, then you switched it back to Eve. You have no evidence in the least about any distortion to God's word by either of them.

Ah, so you're saying that God said something different to Eve than to Adam? Double standards, eh? Or was Adam allowed to touch and Eve not? Actually, now that I remember, Eve says "we" - so surely God couldn't have told Adam one thing and Eve another?

What do you think is the explanation?


I think you need to get a really big mirror.

:note: This shouldn't get personal - no more similar remarks, please.

Naphal
Feb 22nd 2008, 10:10 AM
OK - fair point.



Ah, so you're saying that God said something different to Eve than to Adam? Double standards, eh? Or was Adam allowed to touch and Eve not? Actually, now that I remember, Eve says "we" - so surely God couldn't have told Adam one thing and Eve another?

What do you think is the explanation?

I know why but it's not important to this thread.

The issue here is that you have accused Eve, or Adam of adding to God's word. But, what verses do you have that show who told Eve the rules, and what was said to her?






:note: This shouldn't get personal - no more similar remarks, please.

That's not personal. If you want to be such a big corrector of others you need to be ready to be corrected yourself. To look in the mirror is to hopefully spot your own mistakes and correct them.

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 10:51 AM
I know why but it's not important to this thread.

Er - how so? If you are saying "No, Eve categorically did NOT add to the Word of God" but won't tell us why this is wrong - er, do I really need to start another thread to get the anser? Seems a bit OTT but if needs must!


The issue here is that you have accused Eve, or Adam of adding to God's word. But, what verses do you have that show who told Eve the rules, and what was said to her?

OK - let's look at the text and what you are contending. First, what God told Adam:-

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen 2:16-17 NKJV

Now what Eve told the serpent her understanding of the prohibition was:-

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

So it's actually SATAN who first distorts God's Word, making it harsher than the actual prohibition - there was only one tree that was forbidden, but the implication is that there was maybe more than one and God was being unfair - whatever, God is not recorded as having said what Satan said.

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;[/quote]

OK - so what God told Adam applies to Eve too - so did God tell Eve? or did Adam? Or do you have a thrid suggestion?


but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,

Now - are you suggesting that this was a different tree from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it's not called that by Eve and there is no geographical location of it in 2:16-17? In case that was what you were thinking, I don't think so, because of what God says to Adam:-

And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

Let's go on to see what Eve says next:-


God has said,

What do we make of that? Did Eve trust Adam? Or did God speak direct to Eve? Or did God say something different to Eve later? Or did God say something different to BOTH of them later (because perhaps they'd already touched it)? Or did Moses/the HS forget to include God's full command in 2:16-17? I don't see any other possible explanation - if you have one, please enlighten us.


‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

This is VERY different from what God told Adam - care to suggest why?


Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?” So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Gen 3:1-13 NKJV

So the man blames the woman and the woman blames the devil! That set a kind of precedent in passing the buck, didn't it?

Naphal, I'm prepared to be corrected if you can show me from the text that neither Adam nor Eve distorted God's word.

[quote]That's not personal. If you want to be such a big corrector of others you need to be ready to be corrected yourself. To look in the mirror is to hopefully spot your own mistakes and correct them.

Agreed - I trust you apply the same principle to yourself?

Naphal
Feb 22nd 2008, 10:58 AM
OK - let's look at the text and what you are contending. First, what God told Adam:-

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen 2:16-17 NKJV

Now what Eve told the serpent her understanding of the prohibition was:-

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”


Yet there is no proof that Eve was not told this. It is assumption with an intent to find wickedness only. There is no evidence.





And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;

OK - so what God told Adam applies to Eve too
[/QUOTE]

Oh? I don't recall the scripture saying it was addressed to Eve also, especially since she didn't even exist. How do you know what God may have told Eve?



- so did God tell Eve? or did Adam? Or do you have a thrid suggestion?


I won't do assumptions like you do. It doesn't say. It also doesn't say she added anything, nor does God charge her with that which should tell you she didnt.





Naphal, I'm prepared to be corrected if you can show me from the text that neither Adam nor Eve distorted God's word.

It's already evident that no such crime took place.

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 11:52 AM
Yet there is no proof that Eve was not told this.

You cannot prove a negative! Just like elsewhere you say "It doesn't say we can't repent after death"!


It is assumption with an intent to find wickedness only. There is no evidence.

Ther is prima facie evidence either that Adam distorted God's when he told Eve or Eve distorted what God told her - those are the only two possibilities that we can reasonably infer from the text. There is no other way in which Eve could have come to that knowledge and we can safely conclude that God did not command her not to touch it - that would be double standards. Later God makes reference to Adam eating - Eve says that neither she nor Adam was permitted to touch the tree - that would be a distortion/extension of God's prohibition! But the real disobedience was to the command itself - DON'T EAT!


OK - so what God told Adam applies to Eve too



Oh? I don't recall the scripture saying it was addressed to Eve also, especially since she didn't even exist. How do you know what God may have told Eve?

Naphal, I find it impossible to reason with you - are you seriously suggesting that it would have been OK for Eve to have eaten from this tree? That Adam was forbidden but Eve wasn't? It's clear that God either expected Adam to tell Eve the command or maybe told him to or he told Eve Himself - these are good and necessary inferences - if I'm wrong, what is your explanation?


I won't do assumptions like you do. It doesn't say. It also doesn't say she added anything, nor does God charge her with that which should tell you she didnt.

We can reasonably infer that she added that requirement - and as far as assumptions are concerned, I think that's what you are doing in your second clause! :)


It's already evident that no such crime took place.

It's not - that's just how you want to see it.

I am not prepared to discuss matters with you further.

divaD
Feb 22nd 2008, 03:23 PM
9Marksfan,

The way you reason it, you say that Eve distorted God's words, but you say this doesn't make her a liar. How could it not make her a liar? So if anyone distorts God's words or add to His words, this means that they are telling the truth?

God only gave one commandment, and that commandment was given directly to Adam. We can tell by the text in Gen 3, that Adam was in charge so to say, and that he more than likely instructed Eve concerning this tree.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?


Notice who God calls unto...Adam. Why didn't He call unto Eve first, or even call unto both of them? Verse 8 tells us that both heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.

And since we're talking about an all knowing God, do you really think God was suprised to find out what had happened? Don't you think He already knew? And if He already knew, why didn't He call out Eve's name first?

Something else to think about, since Eve's eyes weren't open until after she partook of the fruit, where would she have gotten the idea in her heart to distort what God said? This would imply that she sinned even before she disobeyed that one and only commandment concerning that tree.

I see sev possibilities as to why Eve thought not to even touch the tree. First of all, it would be impossible to partake of any fruit without touching it first, and secondly, just by simply touching the fruit could lead to more curiosity about the fruit, which could then lead to the actual partaking of the fruit..in which was against that one commandment...not to eat from that tree. I sort of feel that even simply by touching it, is similar to desiring after something in the heart, and partaking of it is the fullfilling of that desire. As long as Eve didn't touch that tree, she wouldn't be able to fullfill the desire to partake of it. This is how the serpent deceived her. He got her first to touch that tree, to desire it in her heart, then he got her to partake of it, fulfilling that desire in her heart.

Clifton
Feb 22nd 2008, 11:29 PM
Genesis 3:2 *And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 *But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


I have been discussing Genesis 3 elsewhere, and I have discovered, that there are many that interpret this as Eve adding to the word of God. The part where they claim she added to the word of God is this: "neither shall ye touch it".

Personally I don't believe she added to the word of God. Does anyone think she did. If so, why?


Genesis is a condensation of snippets of larger texts (written and/or oral), so it may appear to have holes in it. For example, you see no mention of any female besides Eve until Genesis 4 where Cain knew his wife. When you come to the next chapter, we see that Adam fathers 'sons and daughters'.

The Book Of Jasher does not have the "problem" you reference. But really, would not a person have to touch something before they could eat it, or when they eat it? Perhaps she expounded upon the command.

Of course, there is the 1st Book Of Adam and Eve. How legit or fake these books are, no one knows. But I have read it, and it gives much more detail (like the Secrets Of Enoch does for the 6 days of creation). Real or not, it is a good read after reading the Holy Bible first.

tgallison
Feb 23rd 2008, 12:07 AM
I am not saying Eve was a liar - but she distorted what God said! That's ABUNDANTLY clear! Now whether Adam added to what God said or whether in the moment she was thinking how to repsond to the doubt Satan was sowing in her mind, we don't know - but that she distorted God's word by adding to it is unmistakeable.

Nigel greetings

Why do you believe everything God said to Adam was recorded in the Bible?

terrell

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 23rd 2008, 02:56 AM
Something else to think about, since Eve's eyes weren't open until after she partook of the fruit, where would she have gotten the idea in her heart to distort what God said? This would imply that she sinned even before she disobeyed that one and only commandment concerning that tree.

This brings up a very interesting point....the fact that the curse didn't come into effect until both of them had partaken of the fruit. When Eve first consumed it, her eyes were not immediately opened...It wasn't until Adam also ate of the fruit that both of their eyes were opened.

This leads me to conclude that, during the gap of time between Eve's partaking of the fruit, and Adam partaking of it (the period of time wherein Eve gave Adam to eat of the fruit), Eve probably did think God to be untruthful. Not only that, but it makes sense that, when Adam saw that his wife had eaten, and her eyes did not become opened, he probably figured that God had been dishonest with them.

I do believe that they were quite shocked when their eyes were finally opened, not just because of the drastic change which took place within them, but because they realized that God had been telling the truth, even after they had falsely concluded that He hadn't.

It's funny....a lot of people conclude that their eyes were opened because of some property within the fruit, but if this had been the case, then Eve's eyes would have immediately been opened upon her consumption of it, which obviously was not the case, because we all know that the curse didn't come into effect until after both of them had partaken.

I also believe that Satan played on this when he deceived Eve, knowing full well that, after she had partaken, and noticed no difference, she would have doubted God....and that Adam, seeing this, would also have doubted the validity of God's statement.
That's why I completely agree with the above poster who emphasized the fact that they didn't trust God. Instead, they trusted the serpent, which led them to trust their own instincts (the fact that nothing happened after Eve ate), rather than the word of God. This incident just emphasizes our need to trust the Lord, despite appearances.


I see sev possibilities as to why Eve thought not to even touch the tree. First of all, it would be impossible to partake of any fruit without touching it first, and secondly, just by simply touching the fruit could lead to more curiosity about the fruit, which could then lead to the actual partaking of the fruit..in which was against that one commandment...not to eat from that tree. I sort of feel that even simply by touching it, is similar to desiring after something in the heart, and partaking of it is the fullfilling of that desire. As long as Eve didn't touch that tree, she wouldn't be able to fullfill the desire to partake of it. This is how the serpent deceived her. He got her first to touch that tree, to desire it in her heart, then he got her to partake of it, fulfilling that desire in her heart.

I personally believe that Eve got her information from Adam. As we know that Adam did not lie, then we are left with 2 possibilities. Either God told Adam to tell Eve not to touch it, or Adam added that part on himself, which I find highly improbable, as this would constitute him adding to God's Word.

If Adam had directly instructed Eve instead of God, then that would have left the perfect opportunity for Satan to deceive Eve. Because Eve would not have received the command directly from God, this would have left a huge opportunity for Eve to question it. After all, she would not have received the command directly from God, but from Adam.

Eve could have thought "What if God didn't really say that? After all, Adam was the one who told me...not God. What if Adam misinformed me?"
If God had told her directly, it would have been much easier for her to refute Satan's lie, but the fact that she didn't hear it directly from God could have left some window of doubt.
This would open up a whole new can of worms, as Satan would be playing, not only on what God said, but also on Eve's trust of Adam. Not only would Satan be casting doubt on God's word, but also on Adam's...he was planting seeds of distrust, not only on the divine level, but also on the human level.

IMO, it would make logical sense that, since Eve questioned Adam's authority, and his integrity, by eating of the fruit....basically, she distrusted the accuracy of his word....a rift occurred between Adam and Eve. This was part of the curse...because Eve questioned the word which God had given her through Adam. While both of them rebelled against God, it was Adam who directly rebelled against Him, as God gave him the word directly....Eve indirectly rebelled, but she was more or less rebelling against Adam's instruction....then, when Adam noticed that the fruit had not immediately affected Eve, that's when he decided to rebel.

It has been said that sin is passed through the seed of the man, and not the woman. If it was Adam who directly rebelled against God, then this would make perfect sense.

tgallison
Feb 23rd 2008, 04:13 AM
This brings up a very interesting point....the fact that the curse didn't come into effect until both of them had partaken of the fruit. When Eve first consumed it, her eyes were not immediately opened...It wasn't until Adam also ate of the fruit that both of their eyes were opened.

This leads me to conclude that, during the gap of time between Eve's partaking of the fruit, and Adam partaking of it (the period of time wherein Eve gave Adam to eat of the fruit), Eve probably did think God to be untruthful. Not only that, but it makes sense that, when Adam saw that his wife had eaten, and her eyes did not become opened, he probably figured that God had been dishonest with them.

I do believe that they were quite shocked when their eyes were finally opened, not just because of the drastic change which took place within them, but because they realized that God had been telling the truth, even after they had falsely concluded that He hadn't.

It's funny....a lot of people conclude that their eyes were opened because of some property within the fruit, but if this had been the case, then Eve's eyes would have immediately been opened upon her consumption of it, which obviously was not the case, because we all know that the curse didn't come into effect until after both of them had partaken.

I also believe that Satan played on this when he deceived Eve, knowing full well that, after she had partaken, and noticed no difference, she would have doubted God....and that Adam, seeing this, would also have doubted the validity of God's statement.
That's why I completely agree with the above poster who emphasized the fact that they didn't trust God. Instead, they trusted the serpent, which led them to trust their own instincts (the fact that nothing happened after Eve ate), rather than the word of God. This incident just emphasizes our need to trust the Lord, despite appearances.



I personally believe that Eve got her information from Adam. As we know that Adam did not lie, then we are left with 2 possibilities. Either God told Adam to tell Eve not to touch it, or Adam added that part on himself, which I find highly improbable, as this would constitute him adding to God's Word.

If Adam had directly instructed Eve instead of God, then that would have left the perfect opportunity for Satan to deceive Eve. Because Eve would not have received the command directly from God, this would have left a huge opportunity for Eve to question it. After all, she would not have received the command directly from God, but from Adam.

Eve could have thought "What if God didn't really say that? After all, Adam was the one who told me...not God. What if Adam misinformed me?"
If God had told her directly, it would have been much easier for her to refute Satan's lie, but the fact that she didn't hear it directly from God could have left some window of doubt.
This would open up a whole new can of worms, as Satan would be playing, not only on what God said, but also on Eve's trust of Adam. Not only would Satan be casting doubt on God's word, but also on Adam's...he was planting seeds of distrust, not only on the divine level, but also on the human level.

IMO, it would make logical sense that, since Eve questioned Adam's authority, and his integrity, by eating of the fruit....basically, she distrusted the accuracy of his word....a rift occurred between Adam and Eve. This was part of the curse...because Eve questioned the word which God had given her through Adam. While both of them rebelled against God, it was Adam who directly rebelled against Him, as God gave him the word directly....Eve indirectly rebelled, but she was more or less rebelling against Adam's instruction....then, when Adam noticed that the fruit had not immediately affected Eve, that's when he decided to rebel.

It has been said that sin is passed through the seed of the man, and not the woman. If it was Adam who directly rebelled against God, then this would make perfect sense.

Cloudburst

Why do you want to change the word of God or add to it?

There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Eve lied. There is no indication by scripture. Where did God say that he gave you all the details?

With this line of reasoning you could make the Bible say whatever you wanted it to say.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 23rd 2008, 04:35 AM
Cloudburst

Why do you want to change the word of God or add to it?

There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Eve lied. There is no indication by scripture. Where did God say that he gave you all the details?

With this line of reasoning you could make the Bible say whatever you wanted it to say.

In Jesus Christ, terrell

Hi, terrell;

Oh, my goodness. That is NOT what I was trying to say....please don't misconstrue my intentions.

I re-read my post, and I'm sorry, I'm trying to figure out where you got the impression that I had accused Eve of lying.
What I had said was that I thought that she had gotten her information from Adam rather than God, and this was how Satan was able to deceive her into thinking that may not have been what God said.

My above analysis is merely my interpretation, and as an interpretation, it is not infallible.....but I do not believe that I added to the Word of God. I would like to know how you assessed that.

My points were based on the following:

-the fact that both of their eyes were opened at the same time...after Adam ate the fruit. The Bible does specifically state that, and I was merely saying that this made it easier for Eve to mistrust God

-the fact that the Bible does not specifically state that God directly spoke the commandment to Eve. This leaves us with 2 possibilities: either Adam informed Eve about God's commandment, or God informed her directly.

If Adam had informed Eve of the commandment, rather than God directly, than I believe that it would have been much easier for Eve to doubt when Satan asked her "Did God really say that?" If God Himself had directly said that to Eve, then I don't believe she would have been as prone to question.

I do think a lot of it has to do with the order of things, and the fact that God gave man authority over the woman...She was to trust Adam, as the one whom God had appointed over her.

In no way do I think that Eve lied....the Bible doesn't say that God directly gave Eve the commandment, but it does say that He directly gave it to Adam, so I don't think my assumptions are the equivalent of adding to the word of God.
It was still God's commandment to both of them, and they still rebelled when they ate of the fruit. That is without question. What is in question is who directly relayed the commandment to Eve.

Mograce2U
Feb 23rd 2008, 04:44 AM
It seems to me that by Eve adding "neither shall you touch it", that is how Satan was able to qualify his "ye shall not surely die" comment. IOW, ye shall not surely die - for merely touching it (there was a sort of truth in that). But Eve offering that tidbit is what cracked open the door in this discussion for deceit to enter in. Eve may not have ever clearly formulated this thought before in her mind until this challenge was presented. And she might have been kept safe if she had stuck to what God did say as Jesus did when He was confronted with the devil's scripture twisting.

If there is anything to meditate upon in this discussion between Eve and the serpent, it is how her mind was changed which was the prelude to the birth of sin. Until she offered the fruit to Adam and he ate, she had not yet trespassed, which may be why their eyes were opened at the same time after Adam ate the fruit. What the serpent did to her, she in turn did to Adam and that was when the glory of God departed from them both.

Judas experienced a similar phenomenon but only after he had done his dastardly deed - it was only then that devatation came upon him for what he had done. Ananias & Saphira also, but only when they actually lied about what they were doing. Simon the sorcerer too had a similar experience. And so have I. Having your eyes opened after the fact is quite a sobering experience.

There is a scriptural principle that sin must reach its fullness before judgment comes. No doubt when all the evidence that is needed for it is in.

Does anyone else find it curious that although Adam live 900 plus years, we are told no more about his struggles with sin? Could be he learned his lesson!

Naphal
Feb 23rd 2008, 06:06 AM
You cannot prove a negative! Just like elsewhere you say

No, that's just facts. Someone like yourself claims something is true, but when challenged cannot provide any scriptures to document it.




Ther is prima facie evidence either that Adam distorted God's when he told Eve or Eve distorted what God told her

"In common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

Consider that claim of yours rebutted. You have no evidence at all of what God told Eve other than her own testimony. After the sinning occurs, God lists the crimes and punishments and doesn't mention anything about Eve adding to his Word. I have no doubt that Eve would be found not guilty of adding to God's word. I think the prosecution should rest their case.




- those are the only two possibilities that we can reasonably infer from the text. There is no other way in which Eve could have come to that knowledge and we can safely conclude that God did not command her not to touch it

We cannot "safely conclude" things that have no scriptural basis. All we do know is that what Eve says God told her is *slighty different* than what he told Adam. The difference is so small that it makes no sense at all to even make an issue of it.





Naphal, I find it impossible to reason with you - are you seriously suggesting that it would have been OK for Eve to have eaten from this tree?

What? Where in the world would you get that?




That Adam was forbidden but Eve wasn't? It's clear that God either expected Adam to tell Eve the command or maybe told him to or he told Eve Himself - these are good and necessary inferences - if I'm wrong, what is your explanation?

I believe Eve that God told her not to touch or eat the fruit! That should have been clear by now.



I am not prepared to discuss matters with you further.


Thank you! I was just about to say something similar! Have a nice weekend :)

Naphal
Feb 23rd 2008, 06:17 AM
It has been said that sin is passed through the seed of the man, and not the woman. If it was Adam who directly rebelled against God, then this would make perfect sense.

That's said, but it's not factual. I also disagree with the concept that Eve's eyes weren't opened up until Adam's were. The text does not suggest this. It happened the same time for them, and they ate at the same time (within moments).

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 23rd 2008, 06:38 AM
That's said, but it's not factual.

I've heard this said on more than one occasion, by more than one teacher. It makes sense to me.


I also disagree with the concept that Eve's eyes weren't opened up until Adam's were. The text does not suggest this.

The text does not indicate the amount of time that transpired between the time that Eve ate, and the time that Adam ate, but it DOES indicate that their eyes were opened simultaneously:

Gen. 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened....

The word then indicates that both of their eyes were opened after "Eve gave to her husband with her, and he ate."



It happened the same time for them, and they ate at the same time (within moments).

Where in the text does it state that it happened within moments? It merely says that, when Adam was with Eve, then she offered him the fruit.
The text also doesn't say that Adam was with Eve when she was talking to the serpent. If he were, then why didn't he say anything to the serpent, or try to stop her eating the fruit?
Also, if Adam was there, why did the serpent only talk to Eve? It just doesn't make sense to me that if Adam were there, that he would just stand idly by and watch his wife do this without saying a single word.

I honestly think he was elsewhere in the Garden.

Naphal
Feb 23rd 2008, 06:48 AM
The text does not indicate the amount of time that transpired between the time that Eve ate, and the time that Adam ate, but it DOES indicate that their eyes were opened simultaneously:

Gen. 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened....

The word then indicates that both of their eyes were opened after "Eve gave to her husband with her, and he ate."


I don't believe the text suggests it as much as you believe it does. It merely tells us their eyes are open after they have eaten.






Where in the text does it state that it happened within moments?


Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

They ate at the same time, with Eve technically eating first but the difference in time is so small it isn't important.



The text also doesn't say that Adam was with Eve when she was talking to the serpent. If he were, then why didn't he say anything to the serpent, or try to stop her eating the fruit?
Also, if Adam was there, why did the serpent only talk to Eve? It just doesn't make sense to me that if Adam were there, that he would just stand idly by and watch his wife do this without saying a single word.

I honestly think he was elsewhere in the Garden.



He was there.


Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I think he didn't stop her because he wanted her to eat it and he wanted to eat it.

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2008, 04:20 PM
I don't believe the text suggests it as much as you believe it does. It merely tells us their eyes are open after they have eaten.

Yes, you are correct....but more specifically, after Adam had eaten. Their eyes were not opened until both of them had eaten.

(1) Eve ate
(2) She gave to Adam
(3) He ate

There was still that amount of time that transpired, and the Bible does not indicate how much time took place between Eve eating, and Adam eating.

The way I see it (and this is merely an interpretation), Eve ate, realized that her eyes had not yet been opened, and gave to Adam, who also ate, seeing that his wife's eyes hadn't been opened. Then, as soon as he ate, the curse came into effect.






Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

They ate at the same time, with Eve technically eating first but the difference in time is so small it isn't important.

The truth is, we just don't know how what the time difference was. It could have been mere seconds, as you have said, or it could have been several minutes. We just don't know.


He was there.

Yes, he was there....when she gave him the fruit. I seriously doubt that dam was there when the serpent deceived Eve....I believe that he was elsewhere in the Garden, and he came to her after she had already eaten.



And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I think he didn't stop her because he wanted her to eat it and he wanted to eat it.

WOW!!!! I had never thought of that, but IMO, that would make Adam a complete monster. Because HE wanted to disobey God, he was willing to let his wife be deceived, and go down with him, in order to become like God.
I'm sorry, but I really don't buy that. I think that Adam loved his wife very much, and I don't see him allowing her to fall into deception like that just so that he could rebel.

threebigrocks
Feb 24th 2008, 09:38 PM
Yes, you are correct....but more specifically, after Adam had eaten. Their eyes were not eaten until both of them had eaten.

(1) Eve ate
(2) She gave to Adam
(3) He ate

There was still that amount of time that transpired, and the Bible does not indicate how much time took place between Eve eating, and Adam eating.

Adam was there with Eve.


The way I see it (and this is merely an interpretation), Eve ate, realized that her eyes had not yet been opened, and gave to Adam, who also ate, seeing that his wife's eyes hadn't been opened. Then, as soon as he ate, the curse came into effect.

If it's an interpretation, then don't lean on it. Let the Spirit guide you into the knowledge of the scripture.




The truth is, we just don't know how what the time difference was. It could have been mere seconds, as you have said, or it could have been several minutes. We just don't know.


Either way, that's pretty soon. Besides, as you quoted below, Adam was with Eve.



Yes, he was there....when she gave him the fruit. I seriously doubt that Adam was there when the serpent deceived Eve....I believe that he was elsewhere in the Garden, and he came to her after she had already eaten.

WOW!!!! I had never thought of that, but IMO, that would make Adam a complete monster. Because HE wanted to disobey God, he was willing to let his wife be deceived, and go down with him, in order to become like God.
I'm sorry, but I really don't buy that. I think that Adam loved his wife very much, and I don't see him allowing her to fall into deception like that just so that he could rebel.


Look at this:

1 Corinthians 7



32But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
33but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.



Adam was more interested in pleasing his wife than God. If that makes him a monster, well, Eve wasn't much better. They were both more interested in pleasing the flesh and each other than the Lord who walked with them in the garden.

9Marksfan
Feb 24th 2008, 10:10 PM
I've heard it said (and I think there is much truth in this) that part of Adamm's sin was in neglecting to protect Eve - Adam KNEW that he wasn't to eat and I believe he knew that Eve wasn't to either - God would hardly give His comand to one of them and not the other. To waht extent he was watching Eve is speculation but the context seems to be that he was at least an onlooker - at least just prior to Eve giving in, if not for the whole time he was there. His passivity as a husband and his lack of care for and protection of his wife no doubt contributed to his guilt and sin.

But I think there is something to be said for the effects of eating the fruit not coming into play until Adam ate - because he was the federal head of the human race, not Eve - "as in Adam, all die" - "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin" etc - without playing doen Eve's disobedience, it would seem that the effects of the Fall came into play (as cloudburst rightly says) when Adam ate.

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2008, 10:46 PM
Adam was there with Eve.

Correct....The problem is, that the text doesn't specify how long he was with her. What the text DOES say is that the serpent spoke only to the woman, which would seem odd to me if Adam was there with her. Wouldn't he have spoken to both of them?

I've read various opinions on this scenario.
Some say he was with her when she spoke to the serpent....Others say he wasn't.
Some say that she wandered off from, him and he came to her after she had eaten (this is not anti-Scriptural, as the text says that Adam was with her when she offered it to him. I don't see it specified that Adam was with her when she was deceived, but perhaps I am misinterpreting.)

Others say that Adam was with her the whole time, but I am REALLY having trouble comprehending why he didn't say a thing to Eve, after God specifically gave the command to him, and he specifically gave it to Eve...Why when Satan challenged the commandment, he didn't intervene.

Also, why didn't he correct Eve when she tacked on the extra commandment "we shall not touch it." Are we to believe that Adam was that feeble?


If it's an interpretation, then don't lean on it. Let the Spirit guide you into the knowledge of the scripture.

Amen to that!! Trust me, I am NOT relying on it....merely trying to get some feedback on it.


Either way, that's pretty soon. Besides, as you quoted below, Adam was with Eve.

Yes....at some point, he was, or else how could she have given it to him? What is in question here is not the fact that Adam was with Eve, but for how long, and at what point.
The truth is, there are a lot of things about this event that God has decided not to reveal to us (like the conversation that no doubt transpired between Adam and Eve), and this is one of them.



Look at this:

1 Corinthians 7



Adam was more interested in pleasing his wife than God. If that makes him a monster, well, Eve wasn't much better. They were both more interested in pleasing the flesh and each other than the Lord who walked with them in the garden.

SO TRUE!!!! That is the main point of this account.
When I had said he was a monster, I was referring to the previous poster who indicated that, because Adam wanted to rebel, that he was willing to let his wife go down with him, which I don't find plausible at all.
I find it more plausible to believe that either he did not want to go against her wishes, or that he saw that she was not immediately affected after eating the fruit, and decided to do the same.

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2008, 11:03 PM
I've heard it said (and I think there is much truth in this) that part of Adamm's sin was in neglecting to protect Eve - Adam KNEW that he wasn't to eat and I believe he knew that Eve wasn't to either - God would hardly give His comand to one of them and not the other.

Excellent point!!! I have often thought that things may have been different if, rather than giving into Eve and eating, Adam had refused, and immediately gone to the Lord with his wife's sin. I often wonder if the Lord would have had mercy on them both.


To waht extent he was watching Eve is speculation but the context seems to be that he was at least an onlooker - at least just prior to Eve giving in, if not for the whole time he was there. His passivity as a husband and his lack of care for and protection of his wife no doubt contributed to his guilt and sin.

I agree that this was probably a huge factor. It is noteworthy that one of the curses that befell Eve was submission to her husband, and the fact that she would continually be striving to rule over him ("Your desire shall be for your husband").
It's the same phraseology used when God spoke to Cain:

Gen. 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door, And it's desire is for you, but you should rule over it

The fact that she had not submitted to the word of God given her by Adam brought this reality into effect....Man was to have dominion over her, but she would want to have dominion over him.


But I think there is something to be said for the effects of eating the fruit not coming into play until Adam ate - because he was the federal head of the human race, not Eve - "as in Adam, all die" - "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin" etc - without playing doen Eve's disobedience, it would seem that the effects of the Fall came into play (as cloudburst rightly says) when Adam ate.

.....and that was my point. Thank you so much for clarifying.
The fact that Eve ate first, and the curse didn't come into play until both of them had eaten, says to me that this curse wasn't as a result of some property of the fruit itself, but as a result of the actual rebellious act.

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2008, 11:25 PM
9Marksfan,

The way you reason it, you say that Eve distorted God's words, but you say this doesn't make her a liar. How could it not make her a liar? So if anyone distorts God's words or add to His words, this means that they are telling the truth?

God only gave one commandment, and that commandment was given directly to Adam. We can tell by the text in Gen 3, that Adam was in charge so to say, and that he more than likely instructed Eve concerning this tree.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?


Notice who God calls unto...Adam. Why didn't He call unto Eve first, or even call unto both of them? Verse 8 tells us that both heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.

And since we're talking about an all knowing God, do you really think God was suprised to find out what had happened? Don't you think He already knew? And if He already knew, why didn't He call out Eve's name first?

Something else to think about, since Eve's eyes weren't open until after she partook of the fruit, where would she have gotten the idea in her heart to distort what God said? This would imply that she sinned even before she disobeyed that one and only commandment concerning that tree.

I see sev possibilities as to why Eve thought not to even touch the tree. First of all, it would be impossible to partake of any fruit without touching it first, and secondly, just by simply touching the fruit could lead to more curiosity about the fruit, which could then lead to the actual partaking of the fruit..in which was against that one commandment...not to eat from that tree. I sort of feel that even simply by touching it, is similar to desiring after something in the heart, and partaking of it is the fullfilling of that desire. As long as Eve didn't touch that tree, she wouldn't be able to fullfill the desire to partake of it. This is how the serpent deceived her. He got her first to touch that tree, to desire it in her heart, then he got her to partake of it, fulfilling that desire in her heart.

The Bible says that God created Eve to be a helper to Adam. The Bible also says that "woman was created for man, and not man for woman."

Man was created for God, and woman was created for man.

You'll also notice that it was Adam who named the woman, as he did all of the other creatures in the Garden over which he was to have authority.
This indicates to me that Adam was given authority over Eve, and the right to exercise that authority as to how he saw best.

Having this authority, don't you think it plausible that God could have given the authority to Adam on how to instruct his wife....including regarding the commandment not to eat?
Perhaps Adam was exercising his God-given authority, and instructed Eve according to how he thought she should adhere to the commandment? Perhaps God gave him the authority to instruct Eve as he saw fit?
Such a scenario does not run contrary to Scripture...husbands still exercise this kind of authority today.

Given this scenario, this would eliminate the possibility that either Adam OR Eve lied in this account. Adam would have added this on, and God would have allowed him to......because it did not actually run contrary to the original command.

9Marksfan
Feb 24th 2008, 11:43 PM
The Bible says that God created Eve to be a helper to Adam. The Bible also says that "woman was created for man, and not man for woman."

Man was created for God, and woman was created for man.

You'll also notice that it was Adam who named the woman, as he did all of the other creatures in the Garden over which he was to have authority.
This indicates to me that Adam was given authority over Eve, and the right to exercise that authority as to how he saw best.

Having this authority, don't you think it plausible that God could have given the authority to Adam on how to instruct his wife....including regarding the commandment not to eat?
Perhaps Adam was exercising his God-given authority, and instructed Eve according to how he thought she should adhere to the commandment? Perhaps God gave him the authority to instruct Eve as he saw fit?
Such a scenario does not run contrary to Scripture...husbands still exercise this kind of authority today.

Given this scenario, this would eliminate the possibility that either Adam OR Eve lied in this account. Adam would have added this on, and God would have allowed him to......because it did not actually run contrary to the original command.

Hmm - a good try, but I would go along with what you put in your Legalism thread - while Eve starts with "We are permitted...", which could infer that what she was saying was Adam's "amplification" of God's command - but she goes on to say "but God said" - there must therefore have been an addition made either by Adam or Eve, because I do not believe God would command one thing to one of them and another to the other. And if He did, we would have been told. It's called the perspicuity (clarity) of Scriptrue - it always says what it menas and means what it says! It's also the sufficiency of Scripture - God has not left out anything that we needed to know!

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2008, 11:47 PM
Hey, you guys;

Something else to think about, you guys, as to whether or not Adam was there when Eve was talking to the serpent. Someone had mentioned this on another board:

When God is talking to both of them, and He asks Adam what happened, Adam only blames Eve....He does not even MENTION the serpent. This indicates to me that he probably didn't even know about the serpent.

Not only that, but as far as Eve was concerned, she was not even to touch it. When she touched it, and saw that nothing had happened, she probably thought that nothing would happen if she ate it, either.

threebigrocks
Feb 25th 2008, 01:42 AM
I've heard it said (and I think there is much truth in this) that part of Adamm's sin was in neglecting to protect Eve - Adam KNEW that he wasn't to eat and I believe he knew that Eve wasn't to either - God would hardly give His comand to one of them and not the other. To waht extent he was watching Eve is speculation but the context seems to be that he was at least an onlooker - at least just prior to Eve giving in, if not for the whole time he was there. His passivity as a husband and his lack of care for and protection of his wife no doubt contributed to his guilt and sin.

But I think there is something to be said for the effects of eating the fruit not coming into play until Adam ate - because he was the federal head of the human race, not Eve - "as in Adam, all die" - "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin" etc - without playing doen Eve's disobedience, it would seem that the effects of the Fall came into play (as cloudburst rightly says) when Adam ate.

And Adam there to protect Eve - what protects, guides, that which can be tempted? ;) The spirit, from the flesh. When we lean on the Spirit, on the strength of Christ - we can resist and flee. When our Spirit let's down it's guard and the fleshy desires become stronger - the flesh wins out.

Who then in all this - two become one - is the flesh? And, who can be considered the representation of the Spirit who is to live above the flesh? ;)

threebigrocks
Feb 25th 2008, 01:58 AM
SO TRUE!!!! That is the main point of this account.
When I had said he was a monster, I was referring to the previous poster who indicated that, because Adam wanted to rebel, that he was willing to let his wife go down with him, which I don't find plausible at all.
I find it more plausible to believe that either he did not want to go against her wishes, or that he saw that she was not immediately affected after eating the fruit, and decided to do the same.

Thing is - flesh won out. Adam "lost it" - and didn't step in to tell Eve "NO! What in the heck are you doing???!!!" Just as the 1 Corinthians verse states. ;)

Naphal
Feb 25th 2008, 04:04 AM
Yes, you are correct....but more specifically, after Adam had eaten. Their eyes were not opened until both of them had eaten.

(1) Eve ate
(2) She gave to Adam
(3) He ate



They ate at the same time.




The way I see it (and this is merely an interpretation), Eve ate, realized that her eyes had not yet been opened, and gave to Adam, who also ate, seeing that his wife's eyes hadn't been opened. Then, as soon as he ate, the curse came into effect.

I disagree but it's not very important.



Yes, he was there....when she gave him the fruit. I seriously doubt that dam was there when the serpent deceived Eve....I believe that he was elsewhere in the Garden, and he came to her after she had already eaten.

There is no way to know. All we know is that he is there when she gives him the fruit. Either way, he does not stop her from what he does see.



WOW!!!! I had never thought of that, but IMO, that would make Adam a complete monster. Because HE wanted to disobey God, he was willing to let his wife be deceived, and go down with him, in order to become like God.

Who ever said Adam was a good guy? The bible certainly doesn't. I've personally never liked him from what I've read about him.




I'm sorry, but I really don't buy that. I think that Adam loved his wife very much, and I don't see him allowing her to fall into deception like that just so that he could rebel.

I don't think he loved Eve enough to do his job as husband and protect her from the serpent or from eating the fruit. He went right along with it.

Naphal
Feb 25th 2008, 04:15 AM
Hey, you guys;

Something else to think about, you guys, as to whether or not Adam was there when Eve was talking to the serpent. Someone had mentioned this on another board:

When God is talking to both of them, and He asks Adam what happened, Adam only blames Eve....He does not even MENTION the serpent. This indicates to me that he probably didn't even know about the serpent.

He knew. From the context of the verses he was there the entire time:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

It just doesn't make it appear that Adam suddenly appears at the end after the serpent has left. There is a purpose for why the serpent targeted Eve but I don't want to derail the thread. He intentionally deceived her and not Adam. Just because Adam is mentioned or spoken to in the first verses does not mean he wasn't there. They were a team and worked together because that was the entire purpose for the creation of Eve.



When God is talking to both of them, and He asks Adam what happened, Adam only blames Eve....He does not even MENTION the serpent.

He tells the truth, but his intention is to avoid his own responsibility and guilt.


Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.


He can't blame the serpent because he hadn't been deceived nor did the serpent give him the fruit, Eve did.




Not only that, but as far as Eve was concerned, she was not even to touch it. When she touched it, and saw that nothing had happened, she probably thought that nothing would happen if she ate it, either.

Who knows.

9Marksfan
Feb 25th 2008, 12:34 PM
And Adam there to protect Eve - what protects, guides, that which can be tempted? ;) The spirit, from the flesh. When we lean on the Spirit, on the strength of Christ - we can resist and flee. When our Spirit let's down it's guard and the fleshy desires become stronger - the flesh wins out.

Who then in all this - two become one - is the flesh? And, who can be considered the representation of the Spirit who is to live above the flesh? ;)

Strange questions indeed - but the principle was good then as it is now - the husband ought to protect the wife - that's what we're wired to do! And Adam failed spectacularly.

divaD
Feb 25th 2008, 02:06 PM
What I find interesting is what most don't even see here within the fall.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat


So, what did we just learn here? Adam shifted blame to Eve, Eve shifted blame to the serpent. So who got punished? Who's fault was it?


Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.



It appears all three got punished. What is the moral of the story then? The moral of the story is, we all are personally accountable for our own actions, no matter who we try blame. The point is, there is no such thing as being born with a sin nature, Adam and Eve proves that, they weren't created to sin. We sin not because we have to, or because we are forced to, we sin because we choose to, just as Adam and Eve did, they chose to sin, no one forced them. I don't blame Adam, nor do I blame Eve, nor do I even blame the serpent when I sin, I blame myself. I choose to sin. No one forces me to sin.

9Marksfan
Feb 25th 2008, 02:35 PM
What I find interesting is what most don't even see here within the fall.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat


So, what did we just learn here? Adam shifted blame to Eve, Eve shifted blame to the serpent. So who got punished? Who's fault was it?


Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.



It appears all three got punished. What is the moral of the story then? The moral of the story is, we all are personally accountable for our own actions, no matter who we try blame.

Excellent point.


The point is, there is no such thing as being born with a sin nature, Adam and Eve proves that, they weren't created to sin.

They had a real choice whether to obey God or obey self - we choose sin every time because by nature we are sinners:-

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps 51:5 ESV

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Rom 5:12 ESV

"For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:19 ESV

"among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Eph 2:3 ESV



We sin not because we have to, or because we are forced to, we sin because we choose to,

That's true - but WHY do all choose to? WHY do children not need to be taught to be disobedient? Because they are sinners by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way round.

timsleirbag
Mar 3rd 2019, 07:53 PM
again just an opinion - eve wanted the whole taboo God placed on this issue of eating from the tree to sound even more dramatic to the serpent, i.e. she actually wanted to create the impression that by not touching it she is going that extra mile of piousness... hence introducing works salvation into scripture - up till then her salvation [relationship with God - Jesus Christ] was all of His doing, now all of a sudden she had an active [vis a vis passive] role to play, and that is by not touching it :-)
in Christ
gabriel

percho
Mar 5th 2019, 08:27 AM
What I find interesting is what most don't even see here within the fall.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat


So, what did we just learn here? Adam shifted blame to Eve, Eve shifted blame to the serpent. So who got punished? Who's fault was it?


Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.



It appears all three got punished. What is the moral of the story then? The moral of the story is, we all are personally accountable for our own actions, no matter who we try blame. The point is, there is no such thing as being born with a sin nature, Adam and Eve proves that, they weren't created to sin. We sin not because we have to, or because we are forced to, we sin because we choose to, just as Adam and Eve did, they chose to sin, no one forced them. I don't blame Adam, nor do I blame Eve, nor do I even blame the serpent when I sin, I blame myself. I choose to sin. No one forces me to sin.

Do you find it strange that out of the billions that have been born of woman one and only one did no sin?

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal 3:22

What scripture? Psalms 51:5 ? Here is an interesting thought, to me anyway.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:16,17

Was that command a law to Adam? Was it a lot like saying, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

Now my question is had Adam not transgressed that law, would he have been righteous by keeping that law? What does the word say?

[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Gal 3:21